Are memories real or invented, can we tell the difference?

Communications Psychology recently published a study from the University of Birmingham that reveals individuals can accurately assess the reliability of their memories. This finding could have important implications in various fields, including psychology and judicial investigations.


Memories are a combination of recalled details and general information known as "prototypical". When a person remembers a unique event, like a birthday dinner, they rely on their memory of precise details. Conversely, for recurring events, such as the daily commute to work, the brain retains only distinctive elements and fills in the gaps with general knowledge. Dr. Ben Griffiths, principal author of the study, explains that this ability to recognize generic memories helps us evaluate the reliability of our recollections.

In the study, over 200 participants underwent a series of experiments. They observed objects of unusual colors, such as a blue apple. After a distracting math task, they had to recall the exact color and select it from a color chart. They then had to indicate their confidence level in their response by choosing between "sure", "uncertain", or "guessed".

The researchers used machine learning to analyze the participants' responses and identify the "prototypical" color shades often chosen when the participants were unsure of their exact memory. The results show that the participants' confidence in their choices decreased as the chosen colors approached the prototypical shades identified by the algorithm. This suggests that individuals are aware when their memories are influenced by generic information rather than precise details.

This ability to distinguish between precise and generalized memories is crucial, especially in the context of eyewitness testimonies in justice. The confidence placed in a memory can determine the outcome of a trial. Dr. Griffiths points out that, while people struggle to distinguish exact faces from prototypes, this research shows they can fairly accurately evaluate the reliability of their event memories.

The implications of this study are vast. It paves the way for a better understanding of memory mechanisms and could influence practices regarding eyewitness testimonies. By recognizing when our brains fill gaps with generic information, we can improve the accuracy of our memory assessments.

This research reveals an unexpected skill in individuals to evaluate the reliability of their own memories, which could transform our approach to memory and decision-making.